“`html
| Criteria | 1 point | 2 points | 3 points | 4 points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose/Structure | • Claim may be absent, ambiguous, or confusing, demonstrating lack of awareness of task.
• Demonstrates little or no discernible organizational structure. • Transitions may be absent or confusing. • Introduction and conclusion may be unrelated to the response and/or create confusion. • Too brief to demonstrate knowledge of purpose, structure, or task. |
• Claim may be unclear, loosely related, or insufficiently sustained within the task.
• Organizational structure may be repetitive or inconsistent, disrupting the advancement of ideas. • Transitions attempt to connect ideas but may lack purpose and/or variety. • Introduction and conclusion may be present but repetitive, simplistic, or otherwise ineffective. |
• Claim is focused on the task and generally maintained throughout.
• Organizational structure is logical and allows for the advancement of the argument. • Purposeful transitional strategies connect ideas within and among paragraphs. • Sufficient introduction and conclusion contribute to a sense of completeness. |
• Claim is focused on the task and consistently maintained throughout.
• Organizational structure strengthens the response and allows for the advancement of the argument. • Purposeful transitional strategies connect ideas within and among paragraphs, creating cohesion. • Effective introduction and conclusion enhance the essay. |
| Development | • Response may demonstrate lack of understanding of the topic and/or lack of development.
• Elaboration may consist of confusing ideas or demonstrate lack of knowledge of elaborative techniques. • Evidence from the sources may be absent, vague, and/or confusing. • Counterclaim(s) are absent or confusing. • Lacks appropriate citations. • Too brief to demonstrate knowledge of elaboration, topic, or sources. |
• Development may demonstrate partial or incomplete understanding of the topic.
• Elaboration may attempt to develop the argument but may rely heavily on the sources, provide loosely related information, be repetitive or otherwise ineffective. • Evidence may be partially integrated and/or related to the topic but unsupportive of or disconnected from the argument. • Grade-level expectations for counterclaim(s) are insufficiently addressed. • Lacks appropriate citations. • Citation is not a holistic consideration. Without citation, the highest score possible in Development is 2. |
• Logical development demonstrates understanding of the topic.
• Adequate elaboration may include (but may not be limited to) a combination of original student writing with paraphrasing, text evidence, examples, definitions, narrative, and/or rhetorical techniques as appropriate to support the argument. • Relevant, integrated evidence from multiple sources lends credibility to the argument. • Grade-level expectations for counterclaim(s) are sufficiently addressed. • Evidence is appropriately cited. |
• Skillful development demonstrates thorough understanding of the topic.
• Effective elaboration may include original student writing combined with (but may not be limited to) paraphrasing, text evidence, examples, definitions, narrative, and/or rhetorical techniques as appropriate to enhance the argument. • Smoothly integrated, relevant evidence from multiple sources lends credibility to the argument. • Grade-level expectations for counterclaim(s) are fully addressed. • Evidence is appropriately cited. |
| Language | • Vocabulary and word choice may be vague, unclear, or confusing.
• Sentence structure may be simplistic or confusing. • Use of grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and/or spelling may contain a density and variety of severe errors, demonstrating lack of command of standard English conventions, often obscuring meaning. • Tone and/or voice may be inappropriate. • Brevity with errors demonstrates lack of command of language skills. |
• Vocabulary and word choice may be imprecise or basic, demonstrating partial command of expression of ideas.
• Sentence structure may be partially controlled, somewhat simplistic, or lacking grade-appropriate language facility. • Inconsistent use of correct grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and/or spelling; may contain multiple distracting errors, demonstrating partial command of standard English conventions. • Tone and/or voice may be inconsistent. • May be grammatically accurate but too brief to demonstrate grade-appropriate command of language skills. |
• Integration of academic vocabulary demonstrates clear expression of ideas.
• Sentence structure is varied and demonstrates grade-appropriate language facility. • Use of grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling demonstrates grade-appropriate command of standard English conventions. • Tone and/or voice is appropriate for the overall argument. |
• Integration of academic vocabulary strengthens and furthers ideas.
• Skillful use of varied sentence structure contributes to fluidity of ideas. • Use of standard English grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling demonstrates consistent command of the communication of ideas. • Tone and/or voice strengthens the overall argument. |
“`